politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So this article speculating a lot and discussing a couple of people who were speculating and discussing on Xitter? Wow this is worthless...
She was going to seize propert if no bond.
This bond came in at the last second.
A bunch of issues were found with the bond.
A court ruled it's not valid.
For some reason that means they have to pay the bond in cash, and trump has to cover the rest of the original?
Has this happened yet? all I've seen so far is the court asked the insurance co for more information, but no outright ruling on the validity.
It's my understanding that new paperwork didn't help anything.
Like, one of the issues was they weren't even licensed in NY, I don't know how paperwork could retroactively make it legal.
But while they can't promise to pay it under bond, they did sign something saying they were good for 175 million. And they don't have it.
So trump failed to post bond, and now they can seize property.
I think
Shits confusing and trump just says anything to delay this stuff. But I think if Knight doesn't cut a check for cash, they seize property up to what they couldn't out of the 175 million. Or maybe somehow the whole amount because he couldn't get the bond.
What's confusing is these articles are written to sound like these things have happened when really it's just a quote from some rando who says these things are likely to happen. The court itself has not ruled on or rejected the paperwork yet. If you can find an article after 4/4/24 that says otherwise I'd love to see it.
I hate Trump and I hope he gets all that's coming to him, but I don't think this is accurate.
In order for Trump to delay payment of the fines he was court ordered to pay he needs to appeal the courts decision. Under the local law that means he doesn't have to pay till the new case is received or rejected and when received is done, but he does have to post a bond to make sure he doesn't just appeal to get a delay and to ensure at least some of the fines are paid. At first the bond was set to the entire amount, this was challenged by Trump and adjusted to be only a part by the court.
Then Trump attempted to post the bond from Knight, but there was a technical issue with the posting. Some documents were missing including a financial statement. This has lead to speculation it may be that these documents show the bond won't hold up and thus would get rejected. It may however just be an error and get corrected right away. There is the opportunity to repost it and correct the errors, so we will see what happens.
The article goes on into discussion and speculation by a couple of lawyers on Xitter that if the bond doesn't hold up, Trump would have to pay the full amount. And this would probably mean some of his property would get seized. However none of this has happened yet and is thus total speculation. The lawyers also go into a lot of speculation about the bond and the insurer.
Let's just wait and see what the court says. Instead of this grabbing popcorn and yelling grab his shit before we're good and well ready. I've heard Trump getting what's coming to him so many times now and it never seems to happen, so I don't want to get my hopes up.